Wednesday
Sep012010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Bobbing to the surface
Sep 1, 2010 Climate: other Bob Ward has resurfaced, this time in the comments at the New York Times, where he claims that his Guardian article is "patently accurate and truthful".
Too funny. Does anyone take this guy seriously?
Reader Comments (34)
Funny, the thread he posts on is talking about a completely different article in a different paper! A touch sensitive!
My only thought on reading that is "get a life..."
It is interesting he uses the term again "self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics'". As a PR guy I am sure this is a concerted effort to get this phrase into popular use, I just have not worked out the pejorative aspect to it. Any ideas?
I am guessing he means only scientists can be sceptics. Anyone else is a rag tag rabble not qualified to comment, so are "self proclaimed". Wild guess.
It was never possible to take Bob Ward seriously after his performance opposite Fraser Nelson - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw1DVj3r1Hg
Cracking video... now I understand :)
A reincarnation of a political commissar... thank god for democracy.
He also used the phrase "so-called sceptics" and actually put the phrase in quotes in his hands. Maybe we are all "big oil funded"?
Please can we have him on TV more? Please...
A paid PR man who has become the central pillar of his own spin is not only less than useful to his masters, he's a downright liability.
'It is interesting he uses the term again "self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics'". As a PR guy I am sure this is a concerted effort to get this phrase into popular use, I just have not worked out the pejorative aspect to it. Any ideas?'
Maybe he wants people to take the idea that they are actually 'deniers' using the term 'sceptic' to cover what he would hope the audience would regard as loathsome self-interested denial of the truth!?
What I also find interesting is that he has free rein at the Guardian (or he has had, maybe his stock has fallen). He always had the last word on a story, or contributed a piece at the right moment.
So the Guardian is comfortable with this person? Makes you think what type of people are actually on the Guardian Environmental Desk?
Pravda indeed.
Jiminy Cricket: Jo Nova has a different take on the use of the word "Skeptic":
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-word-skeptic-is-back/
Joe Romm prefers "septic", apparently not realizing how infantile that makes him seem to normal human beings (as opposed to his loyal fans).
@Dagfinn...
Joe Romm obviously doesn't know the UK meaning of the slang term "septic"... :-)
To be effective, PR has to be smooth and unruffled and its proponents calm and confident, not rabid and snapping.
The more we hear from Bob, the better I think.
@Pogo
I didn't either (I'm Norwegian). But Urban Dictionary makes it abundantly clear.
It's interesting considering that he is so concerned about patriotism, as in his attack on Anthony Watts here: http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/23/blacklist-peak-readership-for-denier-blogs/
I have never bothered with Climate Progress... but just on one visible screen (1024 pixels) i had the following from different posters...
Could this earthquake in Quebec be linked to loss of ice in the arctic and rebound?
I think climategate was overall a loss for the deniers.
I wonder if the higher traffic before COP15 was from paid discourse poisoners at RW {Right Wing} thinktanks?
Hilarious...
I'd like to see Bob's spin (or slice) on this one. It seems well known in certain circles that forest fires are a symptom of man made global warming. In this case, it seems true
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11146476
So ban golf, or add a hefty carbon tax to green fees?
"self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics'"
"card carrying communist"
Don't you find the adjectives revealing?
Joe Romm obviously doesn't know the UK meaning of the slang term "septic"... :-)
Back in university or "uni" here in Aus, we used to call most Americans "Sepo's". More as a bit of a joke but i think it suits Romm, and Ward for that matter ;-)
Bob Ward is a PR guy who seriously believes in his own PR. Not even Tony Blair does that.
"self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics'
Is he trying to infer you cannot be a sceptic unless someone else confers the title on you?
Well, if we were independently-proclaimed climate change sceptics then we would be IPCC sceptics, no? Sorry, IPCC 'sceptics.'
Ian E, I think you have that right. The extra marks presumably denote that we are all actually Big Oil deniers, adopting the pretense of being [presumably rational] 'sceptics.' BOD's must be ignored since they are all anti-science flat-earth creationist shills, while a sceptic might actually make some logical points.
I posted the comment below at the New York Times blog in response to Ward. Now to see if it makes it past moderation.
Bob Ward #21
You must admit that your article in The Guardian was intended to be an ad hominem attack on Andrew Montford rather than a criticism of his book, The Hockey Stick Illusion. Your article really did not discuss the factual content of his book; i.e., the chronology of events surrounding McIntyre and McKitrick's quest to expose the data and flawed methodology behind the Hockey Stick, including documentation as well as explanations of the various statistical methods. As Montford states on page 448 of his book: \"The e-mails were released after completion of the text of this book.\" In other words, he had completed his book when the explosion of the Climategate e-mails occurred. The latter event, being of huge significance to the content of his book in that multiple Climategate e-mails directly referred to events described in the book and provided supporting evidence, could not be ignored by Montford as his book was ready to send to the printer. So Montford gathered together some of the most incriminating e-mails as per his book and quickly put together a short addendum chapter at the conclusion of his book, including verbatim these e-mails. The latter could only be interpreted as a preliminary analysis and was not intended to be an overview of the entire CRU e-mails.
Yet, the major criticisms you made in your Guardian article were all directed to this final chapter in Monford's book. (Which makes me wonder if you actually read the book.) Why? I think the answer can be found in your comments where you address the three British inquiries: House of Commons Science and Technology, Oxburgh and Muir-Russell. The latter were not independent inquiries -- everyone knows these were biased whitewashes. You and other AGW proponents want these inquiries to stand as the final episode in exonerating CRU and the Hockey Team of misdeeds exposed in Climategate. Therefore, in a further attempt to circle the wagons, you must bring down Montford because he has been commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Foundation to conduct an additional investigation of Climategate and the whitewashes. Your Guardian article was not directed to Montford's book; rather it was directed at Mondford to detract from his participation in the upcoming investigation. Do you deny that your employer, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, stands behind your editorial and the above comment?
Bob had a go at Andrew and 'the hockey stick Illusion' in the Newsnight comments section, when Andrew appeared on Newsnight. Bob Ward was removed from the BBC comments, following me pointing out who he worked for, and that he had a 'history' with Andrew attacking HSI, in the Guardain that week, and the Guardian had been forced to make a number of corrections..
The BBC also removed my comment whilst they thought about it...
Mine is back, I also asked the BBC to leave Bob's comment in, to show what he is made of..
They have now allowed me to quote him, from Jo Abbess!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/08/monday_23_august_2010.html#comments
64. At 7:33pm on 31 Aug 2010, you wrote:
As some of these comments do not make a great deal of sense, following the removal of Bob Ward's (Grantham Institute)at 24.
Perhaps a link to where it is reproduced will be allowed....
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/08/24/newsnight-complain-to-the-bbc/
extract:
"I see that Andrew Montford is bragging on his Bishop Hill blog that he is an interviewee on this evening’s programme about the link between the floods in Pakistan. His only contribution to the climate change debate so far has been a controversial book about palaeoclimatology, so it is not clear what his expertise on climate change and extreme weather is meant to be."
Bishop Hill is the blog of A J MONTFORD, the author of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' and the book that is being referred to.. The iconic graph used in the IPCC reports, and the film 'The Inconvenient Truth'
He writes about his appearance on Newsnight here...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/24/newsnight-reactions.html
I wasn't aware that you had described yourself as an "expert." I think that he inserted that exaggeration to try to make you appear less reasoned and less credible, and it backfired on him.
I suspect he is still smarting over the online debate you did with him- in which he definitely came off second best.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7097515.ece
Sorry OT: There is a terrible hostage situation ongoing in Silver Spring, Maryland, US at the headquarters of the Discovery Channel. Some guy James Lee, who had staged his own protest a couple of years ago, has taken several people hostage and shots (plural) have been fired.
He has posted a manifesto on MySpace which is mix of the worst of Joe Romm and the Malthusians. Children are "filthy beings" who will add to the pollution of the planet. His beef is that Discovery did not do enough to help save the planet.
His interest started with Al Gore's speeches and An Inconvenient Truth.
It is quite probable that this guy is a nutter who latched on to CAGW by accident.. it could have been alien spacecraft. But it is telling that extreme doomsday predictions can produce catastrophic consequences in 'fertile soil'.
Meanwhile, my prayers for the hostages and their families...
posted these at jonova link above. considering how bad the Discovery Channel progs are, one can only cringe at this guy's demands:
2 Sept: SeattleWeeklyBlog: James Lee, Discovery Channel Hostage Taker, Is From British Columbia?
In 2008, Lee was arrested for disorderly conduct by Montgomery County police after a lengthy protest outside of the company’s headquarters. Lee was upset by what he saw as a pro-capitalist, anti-environmental agenda in Discovery’s shows.
Lee spent thousands of dollars in local newspapers advertising the protest. He also hired homeless people to stand next to him to make it appear as if he had a larger group of demonstrators and threw money into the air while saying “money is nothing, money is trash.”
A website called savetheplanetprotest.com is registered to Lee at an address in Burnaby, British Columbia…
Lee’s website is one long Malthusian rant against overpopulation, immigrants and Discovery’s role in turning the world to shit…
UPDATE: Lee’s manifesto isn’t available online, probably because the server he’s using can’t handle the millions of hits it’s getting right now. But Business Insider managed to copy and paste it before it got overwhelmed by traffic.
(FULL TEXT)..
2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it…
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/09/james_lee_discovery_channel_ho.php
MSNBC: Lee said he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
There is one climate prediction that warmists and sceptics could possibly agree on. There is a greater than 95% probability that Bob Ward will not apply to join the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Particularly after they posted this one
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1039-we-should-watch-the-royal-society-very-carefully.html
Update at the same MSNBC link as Pat's -- James Lee has been shot dead, all hostages safe.
So Bob Ward was the Royal Society's press officer?... I am sure he gave even handed treatment on the true state of the "science". Based on that video I can well imagine how he calmly distributed scientific facts and let individuals make up their own mind...
Seriously though, warmists are very fond of the gate keeper tactic... you can imagine Bob Ward haranguing someone on the phone if they "get out of line".
You would have thought the Royal Society had more class...
So Bob Ward was the Royal Society's press officer?
so sad, we can all spot B/S with weak arguments a mile off, but they & others can't.
Hooke,Boyle etc.. would demolish his groupthink or demand evidence from this twerp in a second.
What amazes me is that Bob Watson does not seem to be aware that he is being described as hysterical by a warmist?
Correction Bob Ward (sorry I have Bob Watosn on my mind atm hehe)
Christian - thanks, but my wife has had enough of me walking around in high heel shoes carrying my Louis Vuitton handbag.
Reference the late James Lee incident, Tim Blair in Australia has the story -
After years of harmless idiocy, Lee last night went full Al. Carrying a gun and claiming to be armed with a bomb, the environmentalist entered the Discovery Corporation’s Maryland headquarters. Hostages were taken. Eventually, after several hours, police partially complied with Lee’s population reduction request
Re Bob Ward and the Royal Society you can begin to see how it could work...
Stroking peoples ego's is part of it. To a member/fellow: "Hi, I have organised for the Society to provide a talking head/soundbite/interview/piece, and you are just the person."
With aggressive/motivated/"true believer" behaviour, it would be easy for a press officer to skew the Society in one direction without people really noticing.
Perhaps it unfair, but I cannot escape the feeling that despite some of the intellects involved, someone somewhere (not a conspiracy, just an opportunity) said: "We'll sort the old duffers out"...
Does anyone take this guy seriously?
Well Bob Ward seems to take Bob Ward very seriously. And well he might, being the director of something called the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. With a title like that, how could a director not take himself seriously? (or collapse from laughter . . . but those sorts of people tend not to get directorships of Important Institutions). Oh, and look - the institute is chaired by Lord Stern, he of the that hilarious report of several years ago. If the climate change scam continues to unravel - and it seems it will - can Ward come up with an equally impressive name & mission so he can continue to hobnob with Lords & bankers, or will the Granthams finally realize they've been snookered and pull the plug?
No matter; current recession aside, wealth will probably continue to increase, and Important Institutes will continue to proliferate. I predict that in the future, everyone will have their own Institute for 15 minutes.
thanks for that sky video bob vs frazier...
Bob Ward comes across as Bob Crow's younger brother without the charm and PR skills.